Beat out radeon?

[Martok]

In the next week or two, Nvida's new graphics card, the NV30 should be out. As everyone knows, this card is made to de-throne the Radeon 9700.

Anyone manage to find one of these cards for sale yet?

I'm curious as to what the price is....

[Balandar]

Wish I didn't buy my Ti 4600 now. I have seen the new Fx cards getting 140 fps on UT 2003. That is in 1600x1200 in 32 bit depth.

[Balandar]

http://www.maximumpc.com/features/feature_...2003-01-03.html

GeForce FX Benchmarks Revealed!

We preview nVidia’s latest 3D wunderkind and handicap the inevitable battle with ATI. World exclusive benchmarks! Brought to you by Maximum PC. BY MPC STAFF

The following preview is of an early GeForce FX sample that was hand-delivered to the Maximum PC Lab by an Alienware representative. Our full preview of Alienware’s new prototype machine and the GeForce FX can be found in the February issue of Maximum PC.

We first heard about the GeForce FX, then code-named NV30, in June 2002. We received a run-down of its feature set -- pixel and vertex shaders that exceed the DirectX 9 spec, 128-bit floating-point precision throughout the 3D pipeline, and support for DDR II memory -- but weren’t able to finagle access to working silicon. Until now.

Of course, the GeForceFX card that came inside our Alienware prototype system was just as “beta” as the rest of the system. With early drivers and freshly fabbed silicon, the card we tested isn’t quite what you’ll find in stores when the card ships in February or March. In fact, the board and its drivers were so unpolished, nVidia initially refused to let us benchmark it at all, and relented only when we agreed to limit our tests to pre-approved benchmarks running at stipulated resolutions and AA settings. We gave in to all these conditions because we were intent on reporting the first GeForce FX benchmark scores, however beta they may be. Driver refinement is an ongoing process -- before and after a videocard launch -- and frame rates will improve as nVidia optimizes more and more for specific engines.

It would be silly to extrapolate fine details about the card’s performance from such a small benchmark sample. It would also be unfair, considering the un-optimized condition of the drivers. But we can make some broad guesses about the strengths and weaknesses of nVidia’s new technology. In Quake III running at 1600x1200, 32-bit color and 2x anti-aliasing, the GeForce FX is about 40 percent faster than the ATI Radeon 9700 Pro at the same settings. The GeForce is almost 20 percent faster than the 9700 Pro in the Unreal Tournament 2003 Asbestos fly-by demo at these same settings. However, in the 3DMark 2001:SE Game 4 benchmark at these settings, the Radeon 9700 is about 10 percent faster than the GeForce FX.

What does this suggest? That the GeForce FX is very fast -- particularly when memory bandwidth isn’t an issue. Remember that the GeForce FX’s 128-bit memory bus runs at 500MHz, but has a maximum bandwidth of just 16GB/sec. Meanwhile, the Radeon 9700’s 256-bit memory interface accommodates 19.8GB/sec, even though it runs at just 325MHz.

The GeForce FX’s core graphics processor is much faster than the Radeon 9700’s, so it will be able to draw as many polygons and fill as many pixels as will fit across the memory pipeline. Our hunch is that turning on 4x anti-aliasing at 1600x1200 would diminish the GeForce’s performance lead over the Radeon, or maybe even nix it entirely. But that’s just a guess based on the scores we achieved, and the fact that nVidia wouldn’t let us run anything that would stress the memory pipeline.

We are much more surprised by the Game 4 scores. We expected to see the GeForce FX’s 500MHz core flex its programmable-shader muscle in this DirectX 8 benchmark. nVidia says that the FX’s programmable shaders are able to run more complex shader programs than those mandated by the DirectX 9 spec. Our guess is that the nVidia drivers just aren’t tuned for this particular benchmark yet.

The practical upshot is that if next year’s games -- specifically DooM III and its programmable-shader brethren -- require more raw GPU power than sheer memory bandwidth, the GeForce FX architecture will be a perfect fit. On the other hand, if next year’s games are starved for memory bandwidth, the Radeon 9700 could very well be a better choice for frame rate–hungry gamers. This is just the first round, though. We have no doubt that ATI has plans for a souped-up Radeon that will be ready to roll as soon as the GeForce FX ships. And if you really twisted our arms, we’d bet money that it will be running on a 0.13-micron core and using 256-bit DDR II memory.

Dare to Compare: GeForce FX Early Benchmarks

GeForce FX

Quake3 Demo001, 1600x1200 2xAA: 209fps

UT 2003 Asbestos, 1600x1200 2xAA: 140fps

3DMark Game4, 1600x1200 2xAA: 41fps

Radeon 9700 Pro

Quake3 Demo001, 1600x1200 2xAA: 147fps

UT 2003 Asbestos, 1600x1200 2xAA: 119fps

3DMark Game4, 1600x1200 2xAA: 45fps

Tests were run in the Alienware prototype system.

[Martok]

Bah. I have that article taped up behind my computer! j/k

But I did read that article in maximum PC.

I am curious though.... They tested that card in the new Alienware Prototype....

I am wondering how the card will handle in todays systems rather than in tomorrows systems...

Guess we'll have to wait to see what it will be like when it comes out!

[Hothgorn TheBlack]

The truth is, Nvidia is a little behind. They spent too much time creating the chipset for the x-box, and let ATI catch up. What's really funny is the next generation Ati cards are coming within months after FXs' release.

I kinda wish that they actually made a bigger leap on the FX config. A little more memory perhaps?(thought it sounds insane). The DDRII feature is a nice touch though. The way I figure it, if one is going to pay 400 dollars on a video card, it should last a few years.

--Hothgorn Le Tombé